Why are the 2 mutually exclusive? I happen to think that they go hand in hand. Coaches in every sport make examples of their players and sometimes it's at a detriment to the team in terms of winning a particular game or even games. But they do it in order to set an example of how they want the players and the team to function.
Sure, that is definitely true. Look at recent examples: Keyshawn Johnson, TO, the list goes on and on.
One extreme example is from the movie Hoosiers. In the teams first game a player fouls outs late in the 4th quarter. Instead of subbing for him, Gene Hackman's character plays only 4 players instead of letting his only remaining eligible player, who wasn't buying into his system, come into the game.
I understand what you are getting at, but I just don't think a movie is a good way to illustrate a real-life situation, unless you preface it with "To use an extreme example,".
There are numerous examples from all sports where players have been benched for not abiding to their coaches rules or because of behavior considered detrimental to the team. (You don't think Ron Artest could have helped the Pacers by being on the court instead of being suspended? Does that mean that Larry Bird and Rick Carlisle were breaching their contracts since they probably would have won more games with Artest?) Does it hurt a teams chances to win without those players? In many cases it does but coaches still believe that it's more important to make an example of that player regardless of the fact that it may hinder the teams chances to win a particular game(s).
How about a whole team/season like LB did?
Now why do coaches do this? Because in the long run it's going to help the team. It keeps the players in line. Teaches them discipline. And hopefully gets the team to buy in to what the coach wants. The coach might lose a battle, be it a game, a lot of games or even a season. But in the long run the team will benefit because players will buy in or players that don't will be replaced with players that do.
That is fine, but it has to make sense. We can argue till we are blue in the face, but at some point, blue, or someone else has to explain to me why virtually everyone actually involved with the situation, including the entire Knick team from the youngest rookie to the the oldest, hardest-working, most successful veterans like AD and Malik Rose, criticized LB and what he did this past season.
You want proof? Check out Larry Brown's coaching record everywhere he's been, where the 1st year is always a struggle before they start seeing success. Except for NY of course.
This is simply untrue. I've refuted this point many times already. Lb's first year with a team has started fast, medium, and slow in his pro career. This is inarguable:
1973 CAR ABA 57 27 .679
1977 DEN NBA 50 32 .610
1982 NJN NBA 44 38 .537
1989 SAS NBA 21 61 .256
1992 LAC NBA 23 12 .657
1993 LAC NBA 41 41 .500
1994 IND NBA 47 35 .573
1998 PHI NBA 31 51 .378
2004 DET NBA 54 28 .659
2006 NYK NBA 23 59 .280
What you will find about his first year teams, or any other year for that matter, is that when he had more talent, he won more, and when he had less talent, he lost more. With the notable exception of last year with the Knicks.
***
Screw LB anyway, I'm more interested in these questions:
Is it possible for you to be happy with the Knicks with Isiah GM'ing or coaching?
What specifically do you expect out of the Knicks, in terms of player/team performance and win total?
What would you find to be an acceptable performance, in terms of player/team performance and win total?
What would you find to be a performance that makes you happy, in terms of player/team performance and win total?
C'mon man hang your ass out there! It's all the rage!
Later,
oohah
[Edited by - oohah on 19-09-2006 03:09 AM]
9/18/2006 11:40 PM
